CSA reform - single parents to pay to use service - to be very angry!!

[timefliesby]

www.gingerbread.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?ID=235

So, the government is closing all existing child maintenance cases over the next three years and washing its hands of the £3.5 billion it has FAILED to collect on behalf of single parents. They say they'd like to give separated parents "the chance to come to a private arrangement" or failing that, all those single parents - you know, the ones that aren't getting anything for their children - to PAY to use the CSA. Yes that's right...pay to use the service which has FAILED to collect £3.5 billion owed. But just to hoodwink you into thinking you're getting a new service they'll rebrand it the CMS (wonder how much that's costing?).

Here's a revolutionary thought...the parents that are on friendly enough terms to agree a private arrangement have got a private arrangement already. Which harebrained, ignorant, idiot sat and looked at it and went "I know...we'll just get them to agree it between themselves"...no matter that some of them may have escaped just about with their limbs in place or endured years of control freak behaviour from the non-resident parent.

WHAT A JOKE!!!!

It used to be with the jurisdiction of the courts, because the only language these non-resident parents actually understand is "the bailiffs are going to be sent in" or "you will be going to prison.. if you don't adequately contribute to your children's upkeep."

Then the CSA came along and children suffered for it...now it's the CMS which is basically just the government's excuse to wash their hands of the whole debacle because which cash strapped, single parent can afford to pay for a service that fails to actually secure them any financial contribution towards their children???

Oh and the £3.5 billion is much lower than the figure would be had they actually made a maintenance decision on all those self employed fathers claiming they live on £600 a month whilst owning several companies...

DISCUSS PLEASE!

Happy look up the green party, the 3 main companies have proved themselves to be inadequate!

Surely the system would work better if CSA get £ for all charges once they have found NRP? As long as they have that target in sight to pay the costs they may actually do the work!

Anyone still arguing about whether NRP should pay maintenance needs to have their head examined - if you think men should have less responsibility for their child than women I don't think MN is for you.

HappyMum you fail to understand that when NRP leaves the nest the nest still has to be paid for. You can downsize all you like but if you have, say 3 kids you still need a certain number of bedrooms. Kids may already be in school which means if you have to move out of family home you are limited to area. All costs for utilities/car/insurance/food/clothes are now on you. You must be joking if all couples females I think you mean seriously consider this happening before getting pregnant and work it all out in advance

I understood these fees are on top which would make more sense. Exp has already paid nearly as much in fees and extras to CSA for being such a PITA for them - hanging up on them for months on end/pretending to leave the country/not responding to letters/taking us to court to avoid maintenance/claiming jobseekers illegally for 6 months while earning/setting up own business to go self employed/cancelling his direct debit - all of which incur a cost as they have to contact him every time to figure out what game he is playing now. It saddens me he is happy to pay these extra charges but apparently can only afford £5 a week for his child. Ignores cost of his recent holidays and many expenses paid business trips and an internet showing him winning awards for his role at work on a blockbuster film and Audi and house in London and engagement ring for new fiancée and tries not to make it personal

Missteacake if your DSS is 19 then why hasnt DH arranged his own contact with him for the last 3 years? It wouldnt hve required any involvement or agreement from his EXW, especially not since DSS turned 18.

If a father is consistently maintaining payment why should he have to pay 20% extra just because RP wants to play games

He won't have to will he? He'll just pay in a private agreement He'll be charged only if found to be not paying and therefore newly reformed CSA or whatever will be involved, from how I understand it.

I'm sure by the way my case is in the minority before everyone starts trolling me I understand some fathers don't pay but some do

Phew, good job you mentioned that, I mean I thought every single person's experience was the same til you pointed that out

and yes, LOL at desperate father being denied contact to his 19 year old son by the scheming grasping ex.

alita yes, but that is why the CSA asks for only 20% of earnings; it still leaves 80% of his earnings to live on. Considering men earn far more than women in this country that is usually more than the woman earns when working anyway! The fact that a lot of NRP think this is unfair is where society needs to come in on the side of the child and not pat the NRP on the back for not paying for their child. It is in essence the rest of the country having to pick up the maintenance cheat's childcare bill! Why aren't more people annoyed about THAT rather than banging on at single mothers?

Just read your last para atila and a little confused... You would rather be the single mother of child/ren with no money, than not have the kids to look after or pay for an have all of the extra money and time for holidays and nights out? FWIW my ex could afford a mortgage on his own salary, but as it happens his fiancée also earns a high wage - hence they have double the money and no child to worry about.

I would rather be the rp with no maintenance than the nrp with loads of money

I don't claim to know the statistics on this, but I would hazard a guess that for the most part, is is women with children following the breakdown of a relationship (for whatever reason - it really isn't important), who struggle the most. It stands to reason - despite equal pay legislation, women are often paid less than their male peers and/or are in typically less well paid professions (caring professions in particular are not well paid). On top of that, women are more likely to have taken some time out of work when having children, thus reducing their year on year likelihood of pay increases and promotion compared with their (now ex) partner.

I am not aware of any kind of campaigning on behalf of fathers in relation to their relative financial position post-relationship breakdown. There is plenty in the news, however, about single parent families and how disadvantaged the children are as a result. That is not to say I don't recognise (or understand) your point - and I particularly see how unfair maintenance is for lower paid men generally but particularly for those who live in expensive areas (London, the South East) when they are trying to maintain their own home and a place for their children to stay with them.

You are naive to think that being a PWC means you have 'loads of money'. A minimum wage PWC with a couple of children may well have more coming in compared with a NRP minimum wage worker but the buck stops with the PWC in terms of the children. It isn't easy by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Thanks sock that's surprising. I'd be fairly annoyed if ex separated from his wife and she went for contact for Dd. Although I guess it would come out of his contact time rather than mine. Anyway, bit of a derail! Sorry, just surprised that steps are mentioned when in day to day life steps have no "rights".

I should add...I did see my MP - Peter Luff. I brought up both my own case and the reforms. He knew nothing about the reforms. He did say "he would look into it"... he also said "all men are bastards, we all are"... patronising so and so

alita I don't think many WOMEN on here would rather not have their kids with them. We are meant to be the nuturing sex, dontcha know That's why we are expected to put up and shut up when the menfolk move on to pastures new. It is sadly usually men who don't stick to contact arrangements but no one picks up on the fact these men aren't bothered about seeing their kids at all. Exp was even asked by the Judge at Court to seriously consider a Contact Centre to see DD, but still refused.

I also agree with the poster who said any woman who gets with a man who already has kids either has to accept that he pays the rightful amount to them and deal with it, or expect the very same thing to happen to them later down the line. If women ignore the child and think the man is punishing his ex, when does that relationship end for him if he still has 'power' like that? In reality it is all too easy to ignore the child in these cases and think you are standing by your man attacking his ex. Sadly this should be showing you his true character. Be blind to it at your peril.

missteacake

Given that your ss is 19 no fees would have been paid for using the CSA so how exactly is using it harming your DH? How is it punishing him?

Anyway as AskBasil said upthread, I would love MN to do a campaign on this and NRP payments. If anything should have the support of all of the mummies (and daddies) in the land, it is to get a fair and reliable system for the parent left literally holding the baby.

alita

How exactly is the % they use stinging the NRP?

In what circumstances is paying the legally required minimum % stinging

atilia I am so sorry you are with a man who has children he can't afford. I'm also sad you had to use your own bursary to hook him out of the pile he has got himself into. Your situation seems complex as are there 3 other mothers he has previously left with children?
However CSA rarely punishes NRP beyond their means. They usually still can afford a packet of condoms...

*use contraception

Why did it cost you your bursary to look after his children?

Why was it your job to look after his children and why was it your money? And why are you resenting the mother of his child(ren) for your choice in how you spent your bursary?

Your posts are a bit puzzling tbh.

Anyway it is very sexist to assume that just because he is a man he just left them with the kids! That's not at all what happened.
Sorry my sentence was poorly phrased - other women he has left, who have his children - would have made better sense. I wasn't being sexist, I was trying to understand the set-up.